Let's talk about "speciation"

[Eloi]

That word "speciation" is mentioned a lot by evolutionists on the forum. It seems that it is the way they (the experts) call the transformation of a species into another, a diferent one. How a real ANOTHER SPECIES can the new animal be?

What are the real conditions for something like REAL new species coming out of previous species to occur naturally? Like: What real relationship can there be between a cow and a whale, other than an imaginary magical story?

Reading this

(...) the mountain of confirming evidence that has been collected and tested. (...)

all the time, but none of that "evidence" have been shown anywhere here ... Maybe we can see the real thing behind all these verbiage ...

[brunumb]

[Replying to Eloi in post #1]

Some believers, trapped in the deep well of religious indoctrination, are unable to 'see' the evidence. They have closed themselves off to the blessing of the Spirit of the Open Mind. The millions of observations, papers, theses and books examining all aspects of life on this planet that has culminated in the theory of evolution is invisible to them. Instead, they have their solitary book written by a few anonymous individuals back in a time of ignorance and superstition that they accept without question. They demand evidence for evolution but deny it whenever it is presented. On the other hand, they are unable to supply a shred of evidence for the musings and magic contained in their so-called holy book. The hypocrisy involved is truly palpable.

Edited to change "The believer" to "Some believers".

[otseng]

I don't want anyone harassing/stalking me all around.
I can be as sarcastic as I want, just like any anti-religious forumer here.
Drink your own tea.
Good bye.

Moderator Final Warning

And we don't want anyone here disobeying the rules. Final warning issued.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

That word "speciation" is mentioned a lot by evolutionists on the forum.

And biologists.

It seems that it is the way they (the experts) call the transformation of a species into another, a diferent one. How a real ANOTHER SPECIES can the new animal be?

Quite different, when we look back in time.

What are the real conditions for something like REAL new species coming out of previous species to occur naturally?

Through changes in the genetic code that survive to be propagated through offspring.

Like: What real relationship can there be between a cow and a whale, other than an imaginary magical story?

Milk production comes to mind.

Oh, and calling the pretty thing either one means ya don't get no dinner for the next few days.

"Imaginary magical story." A Christian wrote that about something other'n the bible.

lomfpoc

Reading this

(...) the mountain of confirming evidence that has been collected and tested. (...)

all the time, but none of that "evidence" have been shown anywhere here ...

The data's been provided multiple times across multiple threads. Your inibilty to either understand it, or accept it, is a you problem.

Evolution's a fact, while hypothesi and theori follow from reasoned, logical conclusions.

Maybe we can see the real thing behind all these verbiage ...

It never fails to amuse me when Christians demand scientists, or others, "show the real thing", as they promote belief in a "real god" they're incapable of "showing".

[JoeyKnothead]

The data may be facts, what you do with it is something different. With the same data, under different programs you can have different results. That is not objective, it is subjective. It is like I said somewhere else: you'd be building skyscrapers on quicksand.

Correct.

Under science, ya get reasoned, logical conclusions borne of testing and peer review.

Under Christianity ya get, "Goddidit."

[JoeyKnothead]

...
If I were to say that Neanderthal is just a Homo Sapiens with different ethnicity and in a different epoch, based on the fact that some modern humans have "Neanderthal" genes... could I be right? Isn't speciation proportionally inverse with the possibility of reproduction between individuals under natural conditions?

Fair nuff.

It can be a bit of a fuss deciding just how much difference, and under what circumstances should we decide where the species line should be drawn.

But we can't deny that speciation occurs, given the voluminous volumes of voluminous data we have.

[JoeyKnothead]

The truth is that they do not even have any arsenal of semi-human animals as they want to make it seem. They have barely invented a few classifications for each of these so-called ape-men. They are these, if I am not missing any:

Homo neanderthalensis,
Homo floresiensis,
Homo heidelbergensis,
Homo antecessor,
Homo erectus,
Homo ergaster,
Homo habilis,
Homo rudolfensis

... the whole family ... and when you see the pictures, each of them seems to be a different race/ethnicity . So: how do they know?

Remember now, as humans're apes, we're all apemen.

[Difflugia]

Remember now, as humans're apes, we're all apemen.

I'd say we're all apes, but some of us are human. "Ape-man" is kind of like "bird-chicken."

[The Barbarian]

I'm going to repeat the question I asked elsewhere, although I'm going to relate it to the issue here: what criteria do taxonomists use to classify a bone as normal ape, ape-man, or human?

There are no such classifictions as "normal ape" or "ape-man." However, sometimes we can use the DNA of the particular bone to know what it is. Anatomically modern humans, Denesovans, and Neanderthals, for example. Other times, we can use the structure of the bone to know. The "simian shelf", for example, is found in apes, some hominids, and even Neandertals. Anatomically modern humans don't have it, and instead reinforce the jaw with a chin.
Humans and later Australopithecines have insertions for the abductor pollicis longis and flexor pollicis longus muscles that allow precise use of the thumb for gripping. Other apes do not.

The femur in Australopithecines and humans is angled inward, giving us a sort of knock-kneed appearance. This allows efficient bipedal movement. Other apes can walk on two legs, but do so with an inefficient, rocking motion.

The angle does vary with the species of human or other hominid.

Obviously, if they classify the bones arbitrarily, they will give rise to any false conclusion or even a new hoax. Can any of you reply in a few simple words, without sending the forumers to read other web-pages?

There's a lot more of this. Would you like to learn about more examples?

PS: You always have the option to make summaries of your favorite web pages... Surely there are thousands of web pages for all tastes.

This is off the top of my head, and I'm not an expert on hominid skeletons, but I have some other examples in mind. The skull is kind of interesting, because it illustrates the process of paedomorphosis. Would you like to learn about that?

[The Barbarian]

Remember now, as humans're apes, we're all apemen.

I'd say we're all apes, but some of us are human. "Ape-man" is kind of like "bird-chicken."

Exactly.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to Eloi in post #1]

The believer, trapped in the deep well of religious indoctrination, is unable to 'see' the evidence. They have closed themselves off to the blessing of the Spirit of the Open Mind. The millions of observations, papers, theses and books examining all aspects of life on this planet that has culminated in the theory of evolution is invisible to them. Instead, they have their solitary book written by a few anonymous individuals back in a time of ignorance and superstition that they accept without question. They demand evidence for evolution but deny it whenever it is presented. On the other hand, they are unable to supply a shred of evidence for the musings and magic contained in their so-called holy book. The hypocrisy involved is truly palpable.

I'm a believer. But I don't fear the truth. A Christian should never fear the truth.

The Bible has nothing to say about evolution. But then it has nothing to say about electron energy levels, either. Apparently, that's not what God was interested in telling us.